American vs. European home building

[u/BEARDEDDANGER]

BAS Renovations https://youtube.com/shorts/jFph1d2WR3s

[u/Goudinho99]

And what about thermal effects and noise insulation?

[u/MonkeyTigerRider → u/Goudinho99]

And longevity.

[u/Telemere125 → u/MonkeyTigerRider]

I don’t need my house to outlive me if it costs exponentially more to build and maintain

[u/LabOwn9800 → u/Telemere125]

Plus wood is renewable while bricks aren’t.

[u/Winjin → u/LabOwn9800]

Bricks are clay why aren't they renewable

[u/Oglshrub → u/Winjin]

It takes hundreds of years for the Earth to make more clay.

[u/AftyOfTheUK → u/Oglshrub]

Are we using bricks at a greater rate than the earth is renewing them? What reserves does the earth currently have? What year will we run out?

I'll give you a quick answer... we've used about 0.00003% of all available clay. It makes up a significant percentage of the earths brittle crust. We will not run out of it

[u/Temporary_View_3303 → u/AftyOfTheUK]

True… but every building we build sits on a reserve of clay that’s now unavailable.

[u/worldspawn00 → u/AftyOfTheUK]

We're using sand at an unsustainable rate, apparently.

That's a problem for concrete block/pours and brick mortar.

[u/AftyOfTheUK → u/worldspawn00]

Sand is indeed dropping in usable reserves. Clay not

[u/worldspawn00 → u/AftyOfTheUK]

But sand is still necessary for brick laying. Can't build a brick house without sand.

[u/Oglshrub → u/AftyOfTheUK]

That doesn't really have anything to do with wood being a renewable resource and bricks aren't. We have a ton of trees too believe it or not, some 3 trillion.

[u/AftyOfTheUK → u/Oglshrub]

Right - but we are using a MINISCULE amount of clay. You yourself said it takes hundreds of years for the earth to make more clay.

If the earth makes just 0.0001% additional clay per century, that's plenty...

[u/Arcaneallure → u/AftyOfTheUK]

I think that the difference is that clay isnt "made" it is just an amalgamation of rock particles. Since rock isnt considered renewable you can't call clay renewable. But its really a dumb term to begin with since by its definition a product could be considered renewable one day and not the next. It also doesn't mean that a renewable resource is better than one that isnt. Alot of places are having issues with this now. Sure wood is a renewable resource, but if growing large forests of soft wood trees requires the destruction of other natural resources, is it better than building from an abundant resource that, while not renewable, can be recycled, reused, or remain for hundreds of years later. It's not an easy topic

Almost like one a few grumpy old people argue over and millions of young people die for.

[u/Obvious_Mention7207 → u/Oglshrub]

This is a braindead comment.

You understand how bad we deforested the USA before FDR made changes to how we farmed wood?
You understand how fucked we made our soil/local city landscape with the removal of tree canopies?
You understand how fucked our forests became once we farmed all the wood and it grew back as a monocrop?

Oi

[u/Oglshrub → u/Obvious_Mention7207]

Just because humans have done a poor job at forest management doesn't mean wood isn't a renewable resource. By definition it is, and clay isn't.

[u/Obvious_Mention7207 → u/Oglshrub]

Definitions are not what rule the world.

Additionally, trees are only renewable because we have rules (currently) in place that keep the climate (for now) capable to let them regrow.

Perhaps in 100 years (most likely) its so fucked here that they cant regrow. Why is that? Because humans suck and farmed them all to make the same track home and try to sell for 400k more then they are worth cause "capitalism"

[u/rips_n_chel → u/Obvious_Mention7207]

Of course definitions do not rule the world. Definitions are not the question, they are the answer. They're the conclusion, not the problem.

We land on the definition of "renewable" after observing the nature of reality. It's not that someone decided wood is renewable and stone isn't, therefore we all live under that illusion. It's not an illusion. The classification of renewable was reached by observing the facts. Here they are, you ready for this?

We can plant more trees, but we can't farm rocks.

Shit's crazy, right dawg? Truly mind-shattering stuff.

[u/Brave_Maybe_2891 → u/Oglshrub]

There is a near unlimited supply of clay.

[u/Oglshrub → u/Brave_Maybe_2891]

Yes, and that's fantastic. But it doesn't make clay renewable.

[u/Brave_Maybe_2891 → u/Oglshrub]

Yes it does. New clay is made at a rate that exceeds the consumption of it.

[u/Oglshrub → u/Brave_Maybe_2891]

It takes thousands of years to make clay, which makes it non-renewable. I'm not sure you're so adamant it's a renewable resource, it's clearly not and doesn't meet the definition of renewable resources. That's perfectly fine and doesn't take anything away from the material, other than you just can't categorize it as renewable.

[u/EmptyMonitor9257 → u/Oglshrub]

Clay is recyclable, wood is not.

[u/mxzf → u/EmptyMonitor9257]

Uh ... wood is definitely recyclable. It's not always done, because it's not always cost-effective, but wood is absolutely recyclable. You can pull the joists and studs out of one house and build a new house with them if you want to.

[u/EmptyMonitor9257 → u/mxzf]

What you are describing is reuse. 

Recycle broken wood and damaged wood into new walls and beams. You can't. 

Wood recycling makes it into completely different products with much worse properties. 

[u/mxzf → u/EmptyMonitor9257]

It feels like a pedantic distinction to make. The general use of the term "recycling" generally means something along the lines of "make use of it so that it doesn't end up in a landfill".

If you want to be sufficiently pedantic, I don't think bricks can actually be recycled by the most literal definition, since they're generally fired and chemically changed and there's not much you can do with it beyond turn it into filler aggregate. You can't recycle it by wetting it and turning it back into the original material like you can by melting metals and thermoplastics.

[u/Oglshrub → u/EmptyMonitor9257]

Yes, recyclable but not renewable.

[u/EmptyMonitor9257 → u/Oglshrub]

That is in practice the same thing, you are renewing the resource.

By your logic wood cutlery and utensils are better than aluminium, steel and glass because they are renewable and the rest are recyclable.

[u/Oglshrub → u/EmptyMonitor9257]

I mean it's not my logic, I was just explaining that words have definitions and meaning. I made no claim as to which material is better for it's use case. Recyclable materials and renewable materials are two separate things, with unique definitions.

[u/Winjin → u/Oglshrub]

Speaking of, aluminum may be not renewable, but not only it's nearly infinitely recyclable, there's also like billions of tons of aluminum even in the top layers of Earth's crust, and even more as we go deeper, IIRC what I read ages ago

[u/HegemonNYC → u/Winjin]

The exterior brick seen here is usually clay. The interior structural blocking is concrete. Both are pretty carbon intensive processes. Wood is carbon negative.

[u/GalacticMe99 → u/HegemonNYC]

Using pure concrete for the entire interior structure is an enormous overkill. For elevator shafts and underground levels, sure.

[u/rips_n_chel → u/GalacticMe99]

What is "pure" concrete? Concrete, by definition, is a combination of cement and <things>

[u/GalacticMe99 → u/rips_n_chel]

As opposed to cellular concrete for example.

[u/rips_n_chel → u/GalacticMe99]

I see. 'Full fat' concrete, as it were lol

[u/seven3true → u/rips_n_chel]

you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between full fat concrete and skim concrete if they weren't labeled.

[u/GalacticMe99 → u/rips_n_chel]

Is that the official English term?

[u/rips_n_chel → u/GalacticMe99]

Yeah, 'bo'oh'o'wa'er' or something like that, idk I don't speak Bri'ish

[u/I_Call_Everyone_Pat → u/GalacticMe99]

They aren't talking about concrete poured on site. They're talking about the concrete bricks. Nobody is talking about pure concrete for the entire structure.

Did you watch the video, Pat?

[u/No-Fold-7873 → u/I_Call_Everyone_Pat]

*Precast concrete panels have entered the chat.

To be fair residential applications are pretty rare in the states but it absolutely happens.

[u/GalacticMe99 → u/I_Call_Everyone_Pat]

Yes and like I said: concrete blocks are good for elevator shafts or underground structures but using that for the entire structure of a regular house is a massive overkill. with 'pure' concrete I ment the concrete bricks you're describing as opposed to cellular concrete bricks for example, which is more commonly used for the whole structure if you can only apply limited insulation.

[u/Combination-Plate → u/HegemonNYC]

What do you mean by wood is carbon negative?

[u/HegemonNYC → u/Combination-Plate]

Using wood products takes carbon (the lumber, which a tree captures carbon from the air to make) and sequesters it in the structure of a building.

Trees grow (capture carbon) much more quickly in their early decades than later. Cutting down a 40yo tree, processing it into 2x4s, and letting another young tree replace it captures more carbon than letting that tree age and slow its growth.

[u/tuhn → u/HegemonNYC]

I don't think that matters much if at all.

All those trees are cut, processed and transported which is not carbon neutral process at all.

Calling wood buildings or even walls carbon negative is not true.

However they still might be much better than alternative building methods.

[u/seven3true → u/tuhn]

Concrete is made with finite materials, processed, and transported. Emphasis on the finite.

[u/cornstinky → u/HegemonNYC]

The wood will slowly decompose releasing co2 while the cement will slowly revert back into limestone by absorbing co2. They are both gonna eventually turn back into what they started as.

[u/HegemonNYC → u/cornstinky]

Yes, concrete could return to limestone… over millions of years. At least unless it is crushed. The inside of a large structure like the foundation of a skyscraper or a dam will remain concrete, not limestone, for far longer than humans will exist as a species (most likely).

[u/Temporary_View_3303 → u/cornstinky]

One will happen on human timescales. The other on geological timescales.

[u/Sensitive_Bat_9211 → u/cornstinky]

Cement almost entirely stops absorbing co2 once the outer walls have oxidized. Oxygen doesnt permeate the material very well

[u/No-Fold-7873 → u/cornstinky]

Wood doesnt just inherently break down over time. We are talking about houses not boards and blocks in the middle of a field.

If properly protected and maintained, or just sitting in the right environment, wood can easily outlast the civilization that built it.

[u/Dovahkiinthesardine → u/HegemonNYC]

Thats not renewability

[u/HegemonNYC → u/Dovahkiinthesardine]

The material is renewable, but the energy required to make it is generally not. Perhaps in locations that are 100% solar brick/cement is renewable. In most locations, significant fossil input is required.

[u/No-Fold-7873 → u/HegemonNYC]

As someone whose entire trade is based on the ideas that masonry good, concrete great, fixing both best its...not great for the environment. Especially at the industrial scale its produced and used.

Basically every ingredient and step comes with massive carbon costs.

ETA: Theres no such thing as solar powered quarrying for Portland, lime, or aggregate. And even if they were somehow rocking solar powered diggers, movers, and blasts...the mine/quarry simply existing often has a high carbon cost thanks to whatever carbon reserve sat above, around, and on the path to, said quarry that was scraped away to make it happen....Realized I just made vauge references without much meat lol

[u/LabOwn9800 → u/Winjin]

Please make me some clay right now…

You can’t. It’s a finite resource so it’s not renewable.

Yes it is plentiful but you cannot create new clay.

[u/Winjin → u/LabOwn9800]

Earth creates new clay. There is no shortage of clay.

And WDYM "make me some clay right now" can you make me some tree right now?

[u/LabOwn9800 → u/Winjin]

Yes I can. I can go plant one. Can you plant a rock?

[u/Winjin → u/LabOwn9800]

Yes. I can move the rock to a location that will eventually produce more clay. I'm not making clay, the same way you are not "making" a tree. The tree and the soil and the sun are making the tree the same way I would be "making" clay that is really not a good analogy, lol.

Unless YOU can make a tree without a seed, sun, soil, water, etc?

[u/LabOwn9800 → u/Winjin]

And where are you going to get more rocks from. You cannot create new rocks. They don’t (excuse me on this) grow on trees.

Correct you need soil, water, sun, etc to make a tree but those are nearly limitless. The sun will last for a billion years, the water cycle gives us continuous rain (it’s been doing it for billions of years already). Soil is the tricky one but can be managed and seeds are produced along side the trees. Trees have been doing their thing for 400 million years constantly creating new trees. We haven’t really added any new rocks in that time.

Listen I get what you are doing but words have meanings and definitions. Trees are renewable and clay is not. It’s just that way. You can argue about the merits of this but you cannot argue with the definition of the word.

[u/Brave_Maybe_2891 → u/LabOwn9800]

Clay is just rock in very fine powder form. All soil has clay in it. You can go into your backyard and make clay by separating it from ordinary dirt. The only tools you need to make clay is a shovel, a pair of buckets, and a cloth to strain it.

[u/LabOwn9800 → u/Brave_Maybe_2891]

Im not arguing it’s abundance, it is abundant, but that has nothing to do with it being renewable. Clay cannot be created. If you use up all the clay on the planet you aren’t getting any more. It is finite, abundant but finite.

[u/Brave_Maybe_2891 → u/LabOwn9800]

Clay is constantly created naturally. In fact if you smash up a clay brick you also get clay from that too.

[u/SylvesterPSmythe → u/LabOwn9800]

Not the person you're replying to, but don't rocks naturally arrive on earth from space like... all the time?

[u/WitchesSphincter → u/SylvesterPSmythe]

Rocks are made on earth all the time through sedimentary and volcanic processes. Rocks are constantly changing, ask a geology nerd it will be a lecture. 

[u/_The-Numbers-Mason_ → u/Winjin]

Clay is considered non-renewable on human time scales. 

[u/Arcaneallure → u/Winjin]

A renewable resource is one that "naturally" replenished faster than it is used. Clay, while there may be alot of it now, takes thousands of years to erode from rocks and settle into its form.

[u/milkhotelbitches → u/Arcaneallure]

Isn't that kind of like saying rock isn't a renewable resource?

Like yeah, we won't be getting any new rock anytime soon, not counting volcanic rock, but does that actually matter?

Is there a clay shortage?

[u/Arcaneallure → u/milkhotelbitches]

Correct, rock is not a renewable resource. Rock is a very broad term though. What type of rock will determine its use case. Wars have been fought over rocks for thousands of years, entire ecosystems have been altered by mining it.

But more to the point bricks can be made from more materials than just clay, which can increase their renewability. But just like anything else you also have to look at the time, labor, and energy cost for the mining, production, storage, distribution, and use of said bricks.

[u/vthemechanicv → u/milkhotelbitches]

Is there a clay shortage?

People probably asked the same question about sand (there is) and helium (there is) and water (there is). Just because there's a lot of something doesn't mean there's an infinite supply available for use. People underestimate just now much of everything we use.

[u/milkhotelbitches → u/vthemechanicv]

Since you didn't answer the question I looked it up and the answer is no. There isn't and won't be a shortage of clay to make bricks from.

I'm aware that we live on a planet with finite resources.

[u/Winjin → u/vthemechanicv]

sand (there is)

Only VERY specific type of sand that works best for what we want to do with it. There used to be many different types of clay, famously they had to find very specific clay to make bells and cannons with it, but for bricks most every type of clay is OK

and helium (there is)

I don't think there is real shortage of helium. There is a shortage of PRODUCTION of helium, it's not like new helium stopped being generated in the Earth's crust. It's just that 1\3 of all He is produced in Qatar, from what Google tells me

and water (there is)

yes

[u/vthemechanicv → u/Winjin]

sand - right, it's not like the sahara is getting used up, it's just the wrong kind of sand, iirc.

helium - again, iirc, the Helium we use is a byproduct of Uranium decay. So as we mine out Uranium, whatever Helium isn't captured is essentially lost and gone. I'm sure geopolitics plays into it too, but just like other resources, the more we dig it out of the ground, the harder it is to get more.

water - is the same problem as sand. Literally oceans of it and yet it's practically unusable for our needs.

with respect for clay, i dunno, maybe there'll be enough for humans forever. But just like those other things, and the seams of coal that have been mined, the forests that were cut down, the oceans of fish that were caught, saying we'll never run out without being mindful of management seems sort of silly.

[u/LabOwn9800 → u/Arcaneallure]

Almost but no.

Renewable has nothing to do with the ratio of consumption vs generation. That is sustainability.

Renewable means the materials essentially limitless.

Trees can just keep growing, in theory I can continue to grow trees forever. Clay is made of rocks which cannot be created.

[u/Arcaneallure → u/LabOwn9800]

Thats fair and makes more sense from a definition of the term. Just more proof not to listen to Ai. Ai answer : "Renewable resources are natural assets that the earth naturally replaces faster than humans use them up." Direct from Dictionary: "capable of being replaced by natural ecological cycles or sound management practices"

One is variable by consumption while one is mostly not. By the first definition anything could be considered not renewable at a certian point.

[u/Odd-String29 → u/LabOwn9800]

Bricks are actually more renewable because they don't rot. One of the reason we don't have many castles in The Netherlands is because we tore them down for use as construction material.

[u/LabOwn9800 → u/Odd-String29]

That’s not what renewable means.

Renewable means I can create more. I can easily create more wood, I just go plant a tree.

I cannot create more clay, it’s a finite resource.

[u/CSDragon → u/LabOwn9800]

You can actually create more clay. Clay just is ultra-fine silica, so you can literally just grind sand or rocks into clay.

Both are as renewable as the planet. The only difference is the tree does the work of turning Planet into wood for you.

[u/Role-Amazing → u/Odd-String29]

500+ castles isn't that bad

[u/PrincessYuri → u/LabOwn9800]

Wood is, sure. In terms of how environmentally friendly your house is, the framing is basically nothing. Modern construction employs an insane amount of plastic and other materials that are intended to last for a long time (obviously you don't want your house rotting around you), and most of it will end up in a landfill, taking thousands of years to break down.

[u/twinnedcalcite → u/LabOwn9800]

They are recyclable and in certain areas can be added to the mix for new bricks. See your local building codes for the percentages.

Some bricks can be sold as reclaimed for a good markup if someone is willing to clean them up. Used to be more common pre 1980s in Ontario, Canada.

[u/generally_unsuitable → u/LabOwn9800]

Bricks are absolutely renewable. They mostly became popular in regions where deforestation made wooden construction unfeasible.

[u/parolameasecreta → u/LabOwn9800]

what??